The importance of palliative care in urology.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to identify patients with advanced urological cancer who may benefit from specialist palliative care and to quantify the number of these patients, characterize their problems and to see if their needs were being met. METHODS: The study was divided into two parts over 4-month periods centred on a hospital trust in the UK with a catchment population of 850,000. Urology in-patients were observed prospectively and out-patients were observed retrospectively. Patients were included if they had unresectable, locally advanced or metastatic urological cancer. Patients with prostate cancer were included if they had advanced disease with hormone relapse, defined as three successive rises in PSA. RESULTS: 881 admissions to the urology ward were reviewed. A total of 24 patients with terminal malignancy had 27 admissions. Two patients died during their admission. The average length of stay was 16.6 days. Only 5 patients underwent surgical intervention. The majority of patients had general systemic symptoms of advanced malignancy. 2,482 out-patient visits were reviewed where 69 patients with terminal malignancy received 82 outpatient consultations, representing approximately 10% of all cancer visits. Seventy-five percent of the patients had specific problems or were generally unwell as a result of their disease and would have benefited from specialist palliative care. The remaining 25% were well at the time of their visit, but potential psychosocial problems arising from coping with advancing terminal disease were not addressed. CONCLUSION: Patients requiring palliative care place a heavy burden on in- and out-patient services. There is a case for a palliative care physician to be closely involved in urological cancer teams. Urologists need to be trained in palliative care, as this comprises a significant volume of their work.

General practitioner perception of prostate-specific antigen testing has improved, but more awareness of prostate cancer risk in younger patients is still awaited.

BACKGROUND: In 2006, a county-wide survey of general practitioners (GPs) in the United Kingdom (UK) identified a reluctance to refer younger men with abnormal prostate specific antigen (PSA) levels. Younger men have the most to gain from early-detection of prostate cancer (PCa), which remains a national government priority in the UK and around the world. We sought to assess changes in perception of abnormal PSA-values amongst UK GPs over the past 10 years. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 500 self-administered paper questionnaires were distributed to individually named GPs. One hundred and forty two responded (28.4%), representing a patient population of ∼600,000. A series of visual analogue questions assessed referral thresholds and understanding of risk factors related to the development of PCa. RESULTS: GPs with a median of 23-years experience responded. Although mean PSA threshold for referral to urology did fall between 2006 and 2016 in both the 45-year (5.42 ng/mL vs. 4.61 ng/mL P = 0.0003) and 55-year (5.81 ng/mL vs. 5.30 ng/mL P = 0.0164) age groups, the median referral values were unchanged. Significantly, referral thresholds quoted for younger men (<65 years) were considerably higher than recommended UK maximum PSA-levels. Using case-based scenarios, practitioners appeared more likely to refer older men with abnormal PSA values, with GPs reporting an average 56.2% likelihood of referring an asymptomatic 55-year-old with elevated age-adjusted PSA of 4.6 ng/mL. A total of 95.1% recognised a family history of PCa to be a potential risk factor but other at-risk categories were not so clearly understood. CONCLUSION: Awareness of abnormal PSA values in UK primary care is improving, but continues to lag behind the evidence. Strategies to disseminate knowledge of maximum PSA-values to GPs should focus especially on those for younger patients.